Either way, they have been cordially directed to the egress.
From the comments:
On the contrary, I think that almost all people and institutions that don't currently have a Wikipedia article should not want one.
Huh. How oddly sensible.
An extreme (and close-to-home) example is documented in TracingWoodgrains’s exposé.of David Gerard’s Wikipedia smear campaign against LessWrong and related topics.
Ah, never mind.
Oh, wow, that biography is hilariously bad. Contexuality is not the same thing as superdeterminism. And locality is not "a lost cause". Plenty of people throw around the term quantum nonlocality, but in the smaller population of those who take foundations seriously, many will say that quantum mechanics is local. Most but not all proponents of Copenhagen-ish interpretations say something like, "The moral of Bell's theorem is that nature needs a non-(local hidden variable) theory. We keep locality and drop the hidden variables. In other words, quantum physics is a local non-(hidden variable) theory." The Everettians of various flavors also tend to hold onto locality, or try to, while not always agreeing with each other on how to do that. It's probably only among the Bohmians that you'll find people insisting that quantum physics means nature is intrinsically nonlocal.
Clicking through and fumbling around led me to the time Yud wanted HPMoR to win the Hugo for Best Novel. Oh, and also the time that he bet against the LHC finding the Higgs boson, because
I don't think the modern field of physics has its act sufficiently together to predict that a hitherto undetected quantum field is responsible for mass.
Is there any more solid evidence of Hossenfelder taking Thielbux, or is this just a guess based on the orbit she moves in: appearing on Michael Shermer's podcast years after the news broke that he was a sex pest, blurbing the new book edited by sex pest Lawrence Krauss, etc.
It truly blows that cryptocurrency turned out to be useful only for crimes (uncool) and sex weirdos (derogatory).
The New York Times treats him as an expert: "Eliezer Yudkowsky, a decision theorist and an author of a forthcoming book". He's an Internet rando who has yammered about decision theory, not an actual theorist! He wrote fanfic that claimed to teach rational thinking while getting high-school biology wrong. His attempt to propose a new decision theory was, last I checked, never published in a peer-reviewed journal, and in trying to check again I discovered that it's so obscure it was deleted from Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Functional_Decision_Theory
To recapitulate my sneer from an earlier thread, the New York Times respects actual decision theorists so little, it's like the whole academic discipline is trans people or something.
Wojciakowski took the critiques on board. “Wow, tough crowd … I’ve learned today that you are sensitive to ensuring human readability.”
Christ, what an asshole.
Those are the actors who played Duncan Idaho in the David Lynch adaptation and in the two Syfy miniseries. So, yeah, it's not wrong, just incomplete — though I have no idea why it only serves up those three. There's certainly no limitation to three images, as can be verified by searching for "Sherlock Holmes actor" or the like.
"When I have a disagreement with a girl, I hit my balls with a hammer. There is absolutely nothing she can do; it's a brutal mog."
To date, the largest working nuclear reactor constructed entirely of cheese is the 160 MWe Unit 1 reactor of the French nuclear plant École nationale de technologie supérieure (ENTS).
"That's it! Gromit, we'll make the reactor out of cheese!"
Idea: a programming language that controls how many times a for loop cycles by the number of times a letter appears in a given word, e.g., "for each b in blueberry".